I understand. For those of you who are for strong new gun regulations that could potentially help prevent the massacre like we saw in Las Vegas, the idea of mainstream country music’s top artists coming out against the NRA is a salivating, sumptuous idea since these public personalities hold such sway over huge swaths of conservative America where the stronghold of the pro-gun mindset dwells.

But it’s never going to happen. Ever. And the reason is very very simple, and it’s the same reason your Senator or Congressman won’t come out against the NRA either, even if you’re living in a Democrat-controlled district in some instances. It’s because they’ve been bought by the NRA and other pro-gun special interests—literally paid to oppose any such notions of gun control at every turn. Many mainstream country music artists are literally on the NRA payroll, and purposely so to create a buffer between the NRA and any new gun legislation that may arise, and command an influence on every sector of the American culture, not just our governmental institutions.

There is just as much of a chance that Jason Aldean or Luke Bryan will come out in staunch opposition to the NRA or strong gun control as there is the people writing think pieces and op-ed’s commanding them to do so will somehow miraculously become NRA supporters. There is as much chance that serious gun regulation will pass Congress and be signed into law by President Trump in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting as there is celebrity country stars will endorse it. In other words, there is absolutely no chance at all, whatsoever.

And even if a mainstream country music star did come out in vehement opposition to the NRA, the effort would be completely fruitless, or even potentially counterproductive. If Jason Aldean called a press conference to enumerate a laundry list of ideas that he believed could help prevent the slaughter he witnessed befall his own fans at the Route 91 Harvest Festival, whatever bully pulpit he may inhabit over his fan base would be immediately vacated in the raining down of boos and hisses, while he’d be shouted down as a libtard, a pussy, and a faggot. They’d be burning his records in Wal-Mart parking lots before dark, and all Aldean would have done is wreck his career, lost his Outdoor industry endorsements, and likely his major label deal.

What do you think the point of mainstream country music is? Have you actually taken the time to listen to the songs, especially those which exist primarily through the support of mainstream corporate country radio? The music itself holds little to no value, with some notable exceptions of course. Mainstream country is simply a vehicle to reinforce a lock step corporate culture that promotes the propping up of major American corporate brands and the pumping of cash into various consumer sectors through rabid consumerism. It is just as likely that mainstream country artists will come out vehemently opposed to domestic-made full size pickup trucks or corporate beer as they will the NRA. Which again, is nil. Who do you think greases the wheels of the mainstream country machine? Who do you think sponsors all of the tours, and keeps money flowing to the coffers of Music Row’s major labels? It’s the auto industry, it’s big beer, and it’s Outdoor outfitters and other such recreational companies, and it’s the NRA.

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting, you should have seen some of the sheer horror on the faces of certain folks as a list of the country artists endorsed by the NRA was passed around. You would have thought it was like a run down of the membership of the Ku Klux Klan from some of the reactions. The fact that there’s a list out there with names such as Frankie Ballard, Luke Combs, Easton Corbin, Justin Moore, Eric Paslay, Aaron Watson, and even the sensible Drake White as all working with the NRA was like a horrific discovery for so many, especially after Rosanne Cash published an op-ed in The New York Times saying the NRA outright sponsors domestic terrorism.

But this mainstream country/NRA stuff has been going on for years. It should be no surprise. Mainstream country has been in bed with the NRA and the Outdoor gun sports industry for the better part of a decade. And they’re not going to get out now.The NRA was a primary sponsors of the ACM Awards in 2012. But for some reason, people still believe that country artists need to be challenged to speak up politically. But don’t you understand that if they did, what they would say would be in direct opposition to your viewpoint, and only reinforce the pro-gun, pro NRA mindset in the populous of mainstream country listeners? Do you really think they’re going to change their political affiliations like a light switch just because you want them to?

The Million Mom March in May of 2000, the Obama Administration, and any threats at new regulations of the gun industry have only caused incredibly huge spikes in gun sales and ownership in the United States, and swelled donations and new members to the NRA more than the organization could ever do via self promotion. Rest assured, sales of bump stocks are going to go through the roof right now as manufactures ramp up production to attempt to get as many sold before new regulations could come into effect, especially now that the NRA has shown interest in going along with that one very small new regulation to quench the fires they find burning on their doorstep once again.

I’m not taking a side here, and my only desire to broach a contentious political subject is only to point out the blaring obvious, which is calling mainstream country music performers to arms over the NRA is not only ineffective, it is very likely to be counter-productive to that particular cause. It also creates a battleground out of country music, when music is supposed to be a place apart from the political, aside from some exceptions.

When Michael Moore filmed the anti-gun movie Bowling For Columbine, he was a registered member of the NRA, as were so many individuals who lived in rural areas of America, or owned guns responsibly. When I was growing up, I was taught gun safety, and gun awareness, and responsible gun ownership in programs funded and coordinated through the NRA via the Boy Scouts of America. There is no other organization that has done more to promote and teach gun safety and responsible gun ownership in the history of the United States than the NRA.

Then in the 90’s, especially around the time of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, lobbying became a function and focal point for the NRA, pushed further to the fringes of the issue by even more strident anti gun reg organizations that said the NRA was too lax on the issue, causing the organization to fear losing their donor base. Even today, you can find other gun organizations that say the NRA doesn’t go far enough, always forcing them to take harder stances than even many of their own constituents or leadership feel are fair or necessary. These are the same type of pressures that lead to the further polarization of the United States on both sides of the divide. Organizations are fueled by the donations and attention of hardliners, meaning that’s who they must keep happy, while the moderate and pragmatic in America get squeezed out of the process.

The “thoughts and prayers are not enough” crowd feel like vehement action is needed on this issue, and now. And that is completely understandable, and even commendable. Pro-gun or anti-gun, everyone is incredibly grief-stricken by the the actions of a crazed madman with an arsenal at his dispose. But guilt tripping the Gomer Pyle’s of America’s country music mainstream will never be an effective measure to enact change. Maybe that’s a sad estimation, but it’s a bitter dose of realism for those to the left of this issue that should be heeded.

And folks are giving themselves false hope by posting stories about some country artists saying they have no affiliation with the NRA, which some don’t directly. But saying you’re unaffiliated when asked, and coming out in opposition are two separate things, while others in mainstream country have ties to the gun industry inadvertently through their endorsement deals with Outdoor sports companies. The story of the defection of Josh Abbott’s guitar player to the gun control side is anecdotal at best, and doesn’t reflect anything close to the wholesale movement of country stars to NRA opposition that some are wishing for.

You truly want to change the environment that allows such massacres like the one in Las Vegas to occur? Combat the corruption of the political process via special interest money that gives organizations like the NRA and similar ones on the left incredible power, and which might put the NRA’s attention back on promoting responsible gun ownership as opposed to promoting the most unregulated environment possible. What’s going on right now in the American political process is no different than the corruption and the purchasing of power and influence that corrupts many South American countries, only it’s legal. It also mirrors the reason country music has become nothing more than a big commercial for corporate brands. The music has been bought to peddle influence to the public.

You want to make a difference? Foist the voices of pragmatism and consensus to the forefront, instead of inadvertently elevating the strident ones by giving them undue attention, enabling continued gridlock, and the killing of consensus-based progress. Attempt to find common ground with adversaries as opposed to praying for their absolute annihilation, which will never occur. And then perhaps we will have a country that cannot only come together to solve problems more commonly, but perhaps one that doesn’t commonly inspire people to their release their frustrations with society via mass murder on innocent bystanders.

197 Comments

Trigger: much of this is well taken, and I agree with your fundamental point here. I think a lot of it is mainstream media not understanding country music as well. But the artists I contacted in my RS story did not simply saying “they were unaffiliated when asked.” They were NRA Country artists who are now clarifying very specifically that they are not partnered presently with the NRA when in years past they have not cared to clarify whether their partnership is still active. I think you know that, too.

How people take that reporting–whether it gives people hope, or enrages people, is another discussion. But I don’t appreciate the week of reporting I’ve done being trivialized. I am not going around asking “Country Artist X if they like or dislike the NRA.” That would be inane. I am asking NRA Country artists to clarify their affiliation with the organization, and I don’t see how you can make the argument that the fact that the org’s biggest stars are distancing themselves is not–at the very least–newsworthy.

I apologize if I came across as dismissive of your report, which was not my intention. The point of this article was not to be a counterpoint to your or anyone else’s reporting, but to be an honest, realist assessment of this call by Roasnne Cash and many others—of whom I have nothing but respect for their opinions for—for mainstream country artists to come out an openly oppose something they’re generally in favor of.

The reason Florida Georgia Line, Thomas Rhett, et al have requested their names no longer be listen on an NRA site is because they want to extricate themselves from the political discourse. By taking these actions and characterizing them as political actions, whether purposefully or inadvertently, and giving false hope that at some point they will come out openly opposed to the NRA, is taking an unrealistic view of the environment that has allowed special interest and brands of all different stripes to interject influence in country music.

More than likely, the names that have decided to distance from the NRA have done so via a risk assessment by Big Machine.

Okay I hear that—I understand that there are people so eager for that type of thing that there’s a naive and misinformed interpretative leap that I’m sure some will make in assuming that just because FGL is saying they are not partnered with the NRA that they are now going to be out stomping (or should be out stomping) for legislative gun control. Thanks for clarifying.

If we could lessen gun violence through better laws and less lobbying then FANTASTIC. I don’t care about car violence or deaths just guns for right now. I mean we did have some success against cigarettes companies at least with cigarettes specifically so some things can change.

I have friends who say throw me the, “Guns don’t kill people…” line. And when they say it I ask them to say it again but replace the word gun with nuclear weapons. Has a bit of a different feel to it.

At any rate my views on gun control and guns are separate from my opinions on the 2nd Amendment and I know this is going to sound probably outright stupid but when it comes to the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. My opinion is that most of those who so savagely defend it this train of thought think WAY WAY to small. To hell with guns. I want a tank. And I want land mines. Because for whatever war people think is coming be it WWIII or terrorist attack or “well regulated militia” a pistol or some semi-automatic will not hold the kind of fear and weight a tank has nor it do a very good job of protecting you and yours for very long. But a tank! Woo-whee.

No tanks are not for hunting. But the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, AT ALL. You can hunt all you want. And with or without guns. Hell it not even about self-protection against rape or having your cattle stolen.

“A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” So again a pistol or a rifle WILL NOT cut it in this day and age against a well regulated (most likely our well regulated) militia hence my vote for tanks and such. Go big or go home as they say.

And ALL OF this makes no difference to anybody whose bottom line is profits.

I think this issue goes to ‘creating false gods’……If a celebrity I admire announces they eat nothing but beets, most sane people are not going to choose ‘beets only’ diets. I still remember being appalled the first time I saw Laurence Olivier doing a camera commercial, [yes I’m that old}..It just seemed so cheesy, even if he was a world class actor, or maybe Because he was a giant in the world of acting.
Entertainers should make their money by ‘entertaining’. Who really cares who they vote for?
I still maintain there should be a dividing line between one’s personal life and their Work…If they can’t make enough money off their talent, then perhaps they need to find a different occupation.
I will continue to do my due diligence and vote based on issues I care about and policies that are, imo, good for my country…

Trigger, I’ve always liked your writing and I respect your right as an independent journalist to post whatever you want on your blog, but I would also ask you to have a little more respect for your readers. I can only speak for myself and other readers that I know personally, but this is not what we come here for. There are so few media outlets you can go to these days that don’t post something that gets your hackles up no matter what side you’re on, we just want to read about music and be able to ignore all the shit going on in the world for a while.

And I get it, “people have lost their lives, it’s important”, but there are millions of outlets dealing with it, but I doubt you’re self-important enough to think that you’re readers don’t go elsewhere for news. Please don’t become part of the media machine that seems so hell-bent on beating consumers down with their morality lately without any thought for their audience, it’s exhausting.

I COMPLETELY understand the desire for music, or this website specifically, to be a place apart from the constant barrage of political divisiveness that has overrun everything in American culture to where we now have 100% politicization of everything. I have written about this subject at length, in fear that institutions that the American culture flees to to avoid political conflict are now being overtaken by politics, including country music specifically.

Believe it or not, an article like this is not an attempt to broach a political subject and take a side, but instead to push back against the desire of many to politicize country music for their own political devices. The reason I felt this article needed to be written was because numerous people were calling for overt political actions from many of country music’s biggest stars, which in my opinion, was a disrespect to the sanctity of country music as a place apart from politics.

Please don’t this as the opinion that people don’t have the right to call for political action from country stars or anyone, or that I agree or disagree with what is being called for. Instead, I tried to add a dose of realism and pragmatism to the debate. Unfortunately, that also meant I had to broach political subjects themselves to do so.

Saving Country Music has been very, very consistent on this subject through numerous political cycles, important current events, and even changes in my perspective, focus, and writing voice.

“As inherently polarizing subjects that are regularly the flash points in the greater culture war, political and religious subjects should be avoided unless they are specifically germane to a musical or cultural subject. Entering into or creating political or religious discussions can immediately alienate half of a given set of readers, listeners, or fans. If politics or religion must be discussed, they should be approached as general as possible, without giving specific viewpoints, but how those viewpoints affect the music or cultural subject, and with respect paid to both sides of the discussion. Specific political or religious beliefs (democrat or republican, Christian or atheist) should never be elucidated or asserted by you or other principals of the site within the site’s context.”

Right now, the politicization of every sector of the American culture is creating a very serious existential threat to Saving Country Music specifically, and any website that doesn’t pertain to politics in general. It is my promise that whenever I broach these such subjects, it’s always keeping in mind the sanctity of music as a place apart from politics, and that people come here to see my viewpoints on music, not politics.

You say you think that Country music stars should not be forced to make political statements, and yet you also imply that their statements could persuade conservatives that they influence to support gun control that would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting. You then insinuate country music stars are bought off by the NRA as if they have no morals and suppprt their 2nd amendment rights only out of greed. You claim not to take a side, and yet you are clearly supporting gun control and from previous stories have left leaning political views. Why backpedal now?

What’s the point of inserting your political ideaoligy into most every story since the election and then always adding a disclaimer? Own it.

By the way, conservatives who support the constitution, including you right to post what you want, and the 2nd Ammendment right to bare arms, aren’t going to change their minds on gun control just because some talking head tells them to, even if it is a country music star. We’ll leave that to the left and their love of NFL kneeling stars, crying Jimmy Kimmel, and poor guilt feeling Jason Isbel, to tell them what to think.

“conservatives who support the constitution, including you right to post what you want, and the 2nd Ammendment right to bare arms, aren’t going to change their minds on gun control just because some talking head tells them to…”

I couldn’t think of a better summation of this article, or my opinion.

Which makes your assessment of this as a liberal hit piece that much more quizzical.

Trigger, you raised a valid point that commercial opportunities motivate many mainstream artists. But might that not be the only reason most country artists choose not to speak out against the NRA? Might some of these people sincerely believe that the Americans have a fundamental right to bear arms? Might some believe that the government should not impose new restrictions on law abiding gun owners because a criminal committed a crime, that people should not be penalized or have their freedom restricted because of crimes they did not commit?

I think the reality is that, except for Hollywood celebrities and politicians affiliated with a left leaning political party, most Americans do not have a desire to be activists fighting for gun control, or to make public statements against the NRA. There is a reason why gun control has often been a losing issue in real elections in this country, even though some gun control measures appear to have a high level of support in polls. Second Amendment supporters sincerely believe that defending the right to bear arms is important and they are motivated to vote for pro gun candidates. Whereas many of the people who say they support some anti gun policies do not have strong convictions on the issue and really don’t care that much.

“But might that not be the only reason most country artists choose not to speak out against the NRA? Might some of these people sincerely believe that the Americans have a fundamental right to bear arms?”

You’re probably the 5th or 6th individual to make this point in supposed opposition to what I wrote, but I 100% agree and made this very point in the article. The idea that mainstream country artists who are very adamantly in favor of gun rights and have always been are all of a sudden going to completely change their stance because Rosanne Cash or someone at Slate commands them to is ridiculous. Right or wrong, that is their stance and it is fantasy to think that anything is going to change that overnight. That said, I did mention how the NRA has been specifically paying and endorsing artists and events in country to help reinforce their support in the mainstream country community, which is true.

The problem here is everyone looks at the gun issue as binary. They see an article like this, and they assume it can go only one of two ways: pro gun or anti gun. Instead what I tried to do here was present why it is asinine to assume you can command mainstream country stars to come out in favor of whatever political stance you wish them to just because you really really want it to be that way.

Trigger has always written about subjects that are tied to the country music industry, and this is a case of that. The site still has plenty of news on artists and new music reviews. I enjoy his articles like this, and for those who don’t, they are easy to skip over.

Rather strange for someone to go by “Triggerman” and then “Trigger” for years all while being anti-gun, isn’t it? I don’t get it. I mean, “strong new gun regulations that could potentially help prevent the massacre like we saw in Las Vegas” Yeah, right.

I agree with you and I agree with Rosanne Cash in that everyone must do what they feel best and what they can effect in their circle of control. This is why I can’t talk politics with my left-leaning friends (or anybody really). I am too middle of the road in my politics, nothing is black and white for me so I don’t take sides and that pisses people off because they think I lack conviction.

And from where I sit while the “right” may seem like stubborn cavemen to many of my friends the left has a much bigger problem in their utter lack of unity. For examples some would get pissy at me for not saying cavemen and cavewomen. That is how bad it is.

The fighting among the left with the left I believe is partly how things got so divided. They nitpicked their own team so much a lot of people dropped out and stopped playing the game so their is a HUGE imbalance.

At least from my view most of the right, especially far right seems to, for good or ill, root for the home team instead of driving out the best players.

And I got kicked out for being centrist and pragmatic. In fact I have been bellowing in my community that great Elvis song, “Clean Up Your Own Backyard” for some time now. But people shut me down because they just want to point fingers and yell as opposed to taking actions that could change the streets around them, which in turn would change the cities and on upward. I’m not saying you can’t be active on wider social issues that effect the nation or other parts of the country at the same time but I am saying it is rather hard to help out others when your own house is not in order.

As I am said to my liberal friends quite a bit in past months the NRA, the alt-right, supremacists etc. had nothing to do with the indie musician who got run over by the car of thieves while fighting for the laptop containing all his music that was stolen from him while he was working at a cafe blocks from my house.

They also are not the one’s having a sidewalk sale with my friends DJ equipment, or getting the local mainstay taquerias run out of town to put in a new “speakeasy” for starters.

These stories may not be as loud at a Vegas shootup but that is where MY community should be trying to fix things not having it out with the NRA on twitter.

I see what you’re saying and I mostly agree with you, take care of yourself and your family, then the neighbors, work your way down the block and then look farther away.
I’m a black and white with some grey person ,
to me most things are right or wrong but open
to compromise if it’s a legitimate situation

“…what’s funny here is folks will be saying this from both sides of the political divide.”

Maybe a good reason to just avoid politics all together and focus on “how to save country music”? I’ve been a regular here for quite a few years now because I love the album reviews and just being exposed to new music that I wouldn’t have normally been exposed to. More and more of the focus here seems to be on politics and “social” issues (i.e. not enough women winning meaningless awards or being played on a dying platform that I personally never listen to, like radio). That said, I used to be a daily reader. Even if there wasn’t a new story every day, I’d still check in. Now, I might check in once a week, if that.

I understand that virtue signalling has become a major part of every media outlet. I get why you don’t want to be seen as the stereotypical “backwards, racist, redneck mouth breather” as a country music fan and feel the need to tell everyone about your liberal and progressive beliefs. You are totally within your rights to say whatever you want and I support that and probably agree with a lot of it.

I just wish that there was some corner of the entertainment world that wasn’t infused with politics, right or left. I suppose that’s just the state of politics today. Politicians have been slowly becoming celebrities and entertainment figures. Bill Clinton broke down that wall when he played sax on Arsenio, and now we have a reality TV star as our President. I get that the line between politics and entertainment has been blurring for decades now. I just miss being able to briefly escape all the horrible news and politics with some good music, or a shitty sitcom, or a seeing some stand up comedy. The nice thing about the apolitical live music show is that you can go and enjoy the show with people of all beliefs and bond over our similar humanity, not divide groups A and B over topic C. Less politics in my entertainment, and less entertainment in my politics, please.

Yup. The worst thing that can happen to anyone these days is to to read or hear something you disagree with. This piece should have come wth a Trigger warning (sorry. Couldn’t resist) for those of us with delicate sensitivities

Jr said people should not be forced to stand for the anthem and should be allowed to demonstrate peaceful protest. Sr would be proud of the man he’s become. Jr said he will always stand for the anthem. Your ignorance makes me sad for you if you think Jr saying people should be allowed to protest peacefully is somehow disrespectful to troops, the flag, or would somehow disgrace his dad. It’s ridiculous not to try and understand the viewpoints of others.

Let me offer a full refund for all the money anyone has ever spent reading Saving Country Music if they disagree with my coverage here.

Oh wait….

🙂

As I said in a comment above, this post was not swerving into politics, it was trying to push back against the efforts of others to integrate politics into country music. But I understand how it can appear differently to some. Saving Country Music has always been, and will continue to be about the music first and foremost, especially if folks continue to read those posts, as opposed to just clamoring for them yet avoiding them when they’re posted.

“the environment that allows such massacres like the one in Las Vegas to occur”

The legal environment never “allowed” anything to occur. One might as well say the legal environment allowed peaceful hunting and the defense of a home to occur. But you’re right to draw attention to the conditions that made Paddock’s mass murder possible. The availability of guns is one such condition, but there are others that cut closer to Paddock’s story.

“combat the corruption of the political process via special interest money that gives organizations like the NRA and similar ones on the left incredible power”

We live in a republic, which means we use representatives to deliberate in Washington. You’re right that special interests, and even individuals, often gain direct influence way out of proportion to their size. The NRA has over 5 million dues-paying members, and they probably have at least twice as many sympathizers. Moreover, they are not only protecting an industry (whatever you think of that industry), but one of the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights. So this is not some small specialized tech firm (like Solyndra) that gained unfair advantage over its competition, but a sizable organization with a mission tied directly to defense of a right defined in the US Constitution.

You like the ACLU, right?

The NRA is not the problem, in my opinion. The problem is that we are no longer living in a community, but a randomized and individualized “society” in which mentally unstable people like Paddock can amass a stockpile of weapons unnoticed, and nurture murderous intentions and ideas without even his girlfriends knowing about them. He was *silent* about all this. Maybe he was genetically wack because of his father; maybe he radicalized by ISIS; we don’t know yet. But we do know that, yet again, we don’t know each other. We’re isolated units, particularly in urban areas. Social trust is collapsing. People are turning inward. Everyone is a stranger and a potential mass murderer.

What bothers me most is not that Paddock was a murderous nutcase, but that no one knew him well enough to know he was disturbed and stockpiling weapons. That’s a societal breakdown, and will not only allow, but encourage, more mass shootings like this to occur.

American culture has exploded into bits. Paddock is just more stray voltage and entropy.

>>What bothers me most is not that Paddock was a murderous nutcase, but that no one knew him well enough to know he was disturbed and stockpiling weapons.<<

This. Is. Why. We. Make. Laws.

This is similar to saying "what bothers me isn't that someone was driving 100 miles an hour on city streets, but that one knew them well enough to know they could drive fast." We do leave it up to society to handle this: society makes laws.

Any discussion of the personal motivation of these shootings is a subterfuge to make sure we never address the real issue.

chad, I can walk into a store during lunch break right now, buy myself a nice Glock 17, a couple additional magazines, some ammo, and shoot up a playground full of kids this afternoon, and because I have no criminal background, I would be 100% invisible beforehand

why won’t I? it’s not because a “law” exists. the question is, why does the law acquire legal force within me? THAT is the question. that’s the breakdown that occurs, and that occurs at the individual level.

Paddock said to himself, “f**k the law. I don’t care.”

that’s the breakdown. that’s what makes Paddock different from you and me. why did he say that?

>>that’s the breakdown. that’s what makes Paddock different from you and me. why did he say that?<<

We don't know. We'll never know, for him or the next one and the next one. So, we make laws that make it harder for them to do this. Again, you want to preach the logical fallacy of "we can't stop EVERYONE so we should try to stop no one." It's a typical argument every few months. We can ban certain types of weapons. We can change buying procedures.

Why doesn't this happen nearly as much in other countries? Are their people less crazy? No. They have better laws.

But you're never going to see that point of view. And because of people with your similar viewpoint, we all will just "adjust" to the reality we could be mowed down at a music festival. It's the price we pay so that certain manufacturers can make shit-tons of money.

By the way, don’t tell me what I want and don’t want, and what I said or didn’t say. I have never said or implied that we should try to stop no one. What I wish to say, without your grabbing the microphone and doing a bad impersonation, is that if we want to minimize mass murders, we have to go as close to the root of sociopathy as possible and address the problem there.

Paddock was a sociopath. In an exploded, urbanized, isolated, decadent society, his sociopathy could grow undetected and express itself as it wished. There were no social constraints in or on him. Forget a single law, he rejected the very idea of law. If you were to read about crime in other countries, even that paradise of would-be Seattle socialists, Sweden, you’d understand that this fundamental rejection is the source of their problems, too. The sociopaths there just use other kinds of weapons. But I get that you’re afraid of machine guns and want to feel protected.

And I think you probably have good will, too. My feeling however is that too many people (young people, especially) would like there to be a technological or legalistic solution to the problem of mass shootings. Just tweak the legal machine here and there and — pop! — the social motor will run more smoothly. It won’t happen. The origin of mass murder is not technical or legal, and it is escapism to pretend that it is. It’s also a way of dealing with more complicated problems, like drug violence and the breakdown of the social fabric. Young people are hedonists and don’t want to bother with icky boring things like monogamy, marriage, religion, education, etc.

Last, my answer is yes, people in those other countries are less crazy. And by that, I mean that they (I’m thinking Europeans) tend to live in smaller, more sedentary, more interconnected communities in which children and adults grow up with ambitions, expectations, and directions.

Son have you been to France? One of the deadliest shootings in the world at the Batalclan. All with banned weapons that were illegally imported.

You cannot view the US through the lens of other countries. They do not have the history, nor heritage, with the firearm. Foreign laws will not work when you have 300 million firearms in circulation. Moreover, you have a neighbor to the south with porous borders that brings thousands of firearms into the US every year.

In fact, in lieu of laws, the US gun violence rate has been dropping rapidly. Numerous scholars cannot pin a single reason why. Nor they can truly attribute the lack of gun violence in other countries solely to their lack of firearms. They say it’s “correlated” but so is murder and ice cream sales in the summer.

Firearm violence is at the lowest point its been in years, yet ownership is at an all time high, along with concealed carry. No member of the NRA has ever been involved in a mass shooting.

Stronger gun laws wouldn’t have done shit here. The man planned for months, if not years, and was so thorough and patient that he would have worked around whatever limitation was put in front of him.

You cannot legislate behavior. It sure has worked wonders for the drug trade.

no u can’t , u need to get a purchase permit from the police station first, its not that hard to get but they do do a background check. and that is only to get semi automatic, its extremely difficult to get automatic guns. so many people claim that u can just show up and buy guns from places (gun show loophole, etc), its not like that. , i have purchased many guns in my life and trust me, its not that easy

There is no such thing as a Gunshow Loophole, that is a lie from the left. I don’t know where you are but most southern states do not require any permit to buy a weapon, you do fill out the federal paperwork and do the background check. If all is well with said background check you can leave with your weapon although a few may hold for 24 hrs to 3 days.

Should we abrogate the rights of law abiding citizens because a stranger they have no control over chooses to commit an atrocious crime? One could argue that by providing worldwide fame to mass murderers through their saturation coverage of mass shootings, the mainstream media is creating an incentive for copycats to commit more horrible atrocities. And furthermore the saturation coverage of these crimes increases the media companies’ ratings and profits. If we could reduce the number of mass shootings by enacting a ban on media coverage of these crimes, should the government censor the press, ignoring the First Amendment? I don’t know about you, but I don’t think eliminating fundamental Constitutional rights is the solution. The “cure” might be worse than the disease.

I agree. Most country stars are supporting the NRA because they are NRA supporters. That was sort of my entire point of the article, and why it’s folly to think they’ll flip flop just because you post a think piece on Slate. However the NRA is taking no chances, and is specifically sending checks to country music entities and artists and giving them promotion through their channels to backstop any attempts by anyone else to erode that support.

Golly, I’ve sworn off the increasingly political-leaning posts here, but I can’t pass this one up.

As the rarer liberal fan of country-ish music, I agree with most of the background of this. Country artists aren’t coming out en masse against the NRA anytime soon, in no small part because it’s a vicious cycle — the gun manufacturers spend lots of money to create an environment where people need their products.

I fully believe many Republicans who are staunch Second Amendment supporters don’t really give much of a damn about gun rights (remember the accounts of Romney “hunting”?) — they are addicted to that sweet, sweet gun manufacturer money, though. And I’d bet many country stars are the same — taking gun manufacturers’ money through the NRA aligns fairly well with their fan base, so, hey…

The thing is, taking a position because you’re paid to is worse than having a “bad” opinion yourself. Democrats turning a blind eye to Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment because he gave them money is flat wrong, for example. Members of NRA Country need to understand that being on the NRA Country roster makes them supporters. That’s why Bernstein’s comment above it well-taken; it’s a legitimate question to ask them not “do you like the NRA” but “what is the nature of your affiliation?”

Maybe there are some people like that, but there are plenty of staunch 2nd amendment supporters like myself that view it as important because of an understanding of how history has worked out for unarmed populations. Are you talking about politicians or voters? Because voters don’t get any of that sweet gun money but the majority are still against stronger gun control.

For what they’re worth, polls show strong support for stronger gun laws (I bet we’ll disagree on this because, polls, etc., etc.). I contend that the NRA spends lots and lots of money to make it seem like that’s not the prevailing opinion.

I well remember talking to a coworker who was a conservative who supported gun rights on principle; while discussing crimes committed by guns he said “we can just check who they’re registered to…” He was floored to realize there is no gun “registry.”

The NRA wants to make it an “all guns/no guns” proposition, in order to convince people like my coworker they should be against “gun control” of any form. As is usually the case, the proper solution lies in the middle.

Gun control is a classic example of an issue that seems to do well in polls but does poorly in real elections. The Democrats passed the “Assault Weapons Ban” in 1994 when they had control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. Guess which party lost control of both the House and the Senate later that year? The Dems were so badly burned by that experience that many were reluctant to touch gun control for years afterward.

Registration is no panacea. Registration can lead to confiscation, as has happened before. It is harder for the government to confiscate property it doesn’t know you have.

At least I need our state there is a gun registry if the gun is legal (New York). It has to go on your pistol permit every weapon. Other guns would be registered when they do the background check with the person holding the federal firearms license when you get it.
If the person passed away and the pistols are willed to a person which does not have a permit the government will get them.

Polls are the result of the poler , by changing the wording slightly the questions can receive different results. It’s a known fact that the majority of Americans are against gun control and know the code words ” common sense gun control ” are actually nonsense, none of our politicians have any common sense and control is what their really after.

The NRA is a group of millions of Americans who understand that gun control does not work. See Chicago for an example. Country music fans are generally pro gun. Why would artists want to upset their fanbase? I know I wouldn’t support artists who want to take away my rights.

the have banned the possession of “assault weapons” and any purchase in illinois must be with a permit for purchase.

you cannot cross state lines to buy a handgun and take it with you – it has to be shipped to an FFL close to you and transferred to you, after background check. long guns are possible to buy cross state lines.

because of the AWB, that means you can cross state lines to buy a single shot rifle or shotgun. coming “home” with an ar-15 means trouble for you.

60% of guns used in crime in Chicago come from out of state. Of that, only 20% are traceable to Indiana. That means another 48% of guns used in Chicago crimes are from the rest of the US. It’s not an issue of shutting down Indiana, it’s an issue of criminals going out of their way to import firearms.

Chicago has made rich men out of gunrunners. And dead men out of its citizens.
Same thing with the drug trade.

The lack of sensible gun laws here is an embarrassment to this country. No one is trying to take your hunting guns away. I am a left-wind liberal. I own 3 guns. I have 1000 rounds of ammo in my basement. My 14-year-old son doesn’t play baseball, basketball, football or soccer. His high school sport is shooting guns (he is on a competitive clay team). But our gun laws are a joke. And all those politicians and others paid off by the NRA are the reason.

See this is why nothing ever gets done. I’m not going to evaluate the actual policy in front of me…I’m going to turn it into something else that might possibly come down the line, and then engage in scare topics that have nothing to do with facts or the actual proposal, so that the new policy loses.

“I’m not going to evaluate the actual policy in front of me…I’m going to turn it into something else that might possibly come down the line, and then engage in scare topics that have nothing to do with facts or the actual proposal, so that the new policy loses.”

Bingo. Treat everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth as a lie and look out for the interests of you, your family, and your close friends.

Exactly what Seak05 said. I am utterly confident a national referendum banning certain types of high-capicity rifles (no one hunts with an AK-47) and instituting a licensing procedure would pass. Would some portion of the population be incensed? Yes. But such is the way a representative democracy works.

Therefore, the gun manufacturers must make sure the conversation is never about that specifically.

JF, what gun laws would you like to see implemented? Would you like to follow Australia’s example of Gun Confiscation? I constantly hear people bringing up Australian gun control. What they really mean is gun bans and forced buybacks (confiscation).

The NRA is so much smaller than you think it is. The amount it pays to politicians are a pittance compared to so many other lobbying groups. Cable companies, wall street, and silicon valley pay 10x more to the politicians than the NRA could ever imagine to.

The power of the NRA doesn’t come from their money, it comes from the millions of members who will have not only proven to be dedicated to a single issue, but willing to vote en masse for those who support that issue. That makes politicians fear them more than other groups.

It’s not their money, its the membership. They are the only group pro-second amendment, which makes them an easy scapegoat.

I don’t see the need for high capacity assault computers. The founding fathers couldn’t have envisioned the internet when they wrote the first amendment, so I think all speech should be reserved for the printing press, the quill pen, and the soapbox. No need for radio, telephones, television, the internet, or any other means of mass communication other than the printing press.

The battle is not in the congressional chambers, it’s in the lobby. You can’t fight a financial battle in the voting booth. All the world’s a stage, but that’s just for show.
The most successful lobby groups are essentially unopposed. Either fight fire with fire or put down your torch. Organize. Fund-raise. Buy some elected officials. Get down in the mud and wrestle those hogs.
As for me I’m still looking for a good deal on a used 20 gauge pump shotgun, and an economical-to-shoot rifle. Maybe something in a 7.62x54R? I’m leaning away from 9 mm.

I found Rosanne Cash’s op-ed to be heartfelt and well-articulated, and I completely respect her opinions and perspective. Unfortunately though, in my opinion it didn’t have the dose of realism that you need when trying to asses how to move forward with pragmatic solutions for difficult to solve problems.

Those of us who favor stricter gun laws can never speak with the right dose of realism, because we’re talking an entirely different language. If we’re ever going to get anything done, it’s going to be on the strength of common-sense gun owners.

Great article! I’ll read it again tonight. My first take though is, how did we get here? This site was built around artists that couldn’t be bought and sold. Independent, progressive, forward-thinking artists like Sturgill Simpson, Jadon Isbell, and Willie Nelson. Those are the artists who’s opinion I half care about. I couldn’t give a shit what Jason Aldean or Florida Georgia Line or Aaron Watson think – they are all posers anyways. I get they have their twitter followers and the ears of millions, but that doesn’t affect my opinions or beliefs.

It’s just funny that on SCM there’s an article explaining the opinions of mainstream country artists.

This is a very important point about the importance for advocating for independent music. What is the fundamental difference between independent and mainstream music? Independent music is “independent” of advertisers, major corporate labels, and other large entities that can peddle influence through music. That doesn’t mean Jason Isbell won’t take a Martin Guitars endorsement, or that he doesn’t have political opinions (as we’ve found out recently). But when Jason Isbell or Cody Jinks endorses or says something, you know it’s coming from their heart, and they’re not just being used as a branding vehicle for something bigger than themselves.

I’m sure there are artists, and regular citizens, on both sides of the political spectrum whose views cannot be bought. And I agree that a sincere and authentic point of view should carry more weight than an endorsement paid for with corporate dollars.

But “progressive” is a loaded term. I’ve had trendy friends who told me they were progressives. I asked them, progressing towards what? Often they didn’t know what to say. These days what is labeled “progressivism” is often authoritarianism disguised as equality. It is collectivism and group identity politics. Many “progressives” now believe that groups have collective rights, and if those collective rights conflict with the Constitutional rights of individuals, well if you’re one of those individuals it’s just too bad. Many progressives support high taxes, exorbitant government spending, and excessive regulation and bureaucracy. They want centralized planning, because they think they are better people and they think the “hicks” in the rest of the country outside of the big cities along the coast don’t know any better.

Adrian – great points! I believe progressives as a group look at a document written over 200 year ago by men with wooden teeth, wearing wigs and owning slaves can not apply to life in the Unites States in 2017. We evolve as a race all the time – remember we used to smoke on planes? – why can’t the laws that govern use evolve? They should. I hate the Constitution because it hinders progress.
I can name many progressive hicks – Steve Earle, Otis Gibbs, Willie Nelson, Elizabeth Cook, ME – a white gay man who wishes the 2nd amendment was obliterated, but loves college football, working on his truck, owns two pairs of the same boots (one for work, one for going to town), drinks bourbon and Budweiser, and grows corn in my front yard.

They grow rich, lazy, and decadent. For various reasons, they no longer reproduce and no longer care to do the hard work it takes to sustain their civilization. Instead, as they concur others or their philosophy devolves into silly notions about equality and individual rights, they import those from foreign, unassimilable cultures. These people reproduce at astronomical rates, but are incapable to fulfilling the duties of a traditional citizen. Their numbers continue to swell and the demand more and more from the native population. Simultaneously, the native population continues to degenerate. Finally, through conquest, or shear numbers, the barbarians take over and the world goes dark for decades or centuries.

For the record I gave up on gun control after sandy hook. As to the NRA, literally no lobby compares, it’s insanely powerful, consistently rating #1 or #2 (behind aarp) on most metrics, despite being one of the smallest in size. Every other top lobby has a large membership.

Increasingly it is a small number of individuals who are purchasing larger and larger quantities of guns. This pivot, and then the nra’s towards hard line lobbying (away from mostly education) started around the 1960’s. You can draw your own correlations or conclusions.

Personally, while it will never happen, I’d like to see the US move towards the model that we see in some European countries, where gun ownership is through hunting & recreational clubs, and that is where the guns are stored. When used in a residence, guns are vast majority fired as part of a suicide attempt, accident, or domestic violence…very very rarely in self defense at an intruder. This type of model would also be somewhat a return to what gun ownership looked like at the time of the constitution. Where most men owned a gun, but where also part of the militia, and the ammunition was stored by the militia.

Reading one of your comments further down you are pro-choice. If you are pro-choicehow could you be against suicide? It is their body and their choice. Dhat does it matter to you how they opt to commit suicide as long as it’s is only them being harmed?

You very clearly know nothing about depression, mental illness, & suicide. However if you’re asking if I think suicide should be a criminal matter, no I don’t. And yes I am for legalizing physician assisted suicide as well.

Their body their choice. They should be able commit suicide as they see fit. You don’t want no restrictions placed on abortion. You can’t have it both ways. “It’s all super fun bc who doesn’t want a bunch of politicians telling me what to do with my actual body. But yes totally comparable.”

We need to get both big and dark money out of our politics. Citizens United was one of the worst rulings the Supreme Court ever made. Too few have too much say, and in a two-party system, both sides are forced to play the big money game or we will end up with a one-party system real fast.
If money is the root of all evil, why is it now the central driving force of our Nation’s political system?

Look, I’ll be the first to say that Communism is not a viable option for government (or lack thereof), but China, USSR, and Cuba are/were Communist in name only. Communism, at least the Marxist branch, calls for a stateless, hierarchy free society, which is a far cry from what those countries were. If I was a politician that called labeled myself a conservative, yet called for higher taxes, strengthened gun control, instituted government-run healthcare, and supported the creation of more federal social programs, no one in their right mind would consider me a conservative, no matter how much I said I was.

Trigger:
I respectfully disagree with the message of your article due to the fallacious notion that curtailing access to firearms is the only independently-minded reaction to the events in Las Vegas. From where did you get the misconception that anyone not in full support of gun control measures is bought and paid by the National Rifle Association? It isn’t possible for anyone to independently form their own opinion with regard to firearm rights? And why do you feel that it is obligatory for country music hacks to voice your opinion for you?

When evaluating the impact of the NRA, far too much emphasis is placed on the money they donate to political campaigns and ad campaigns. Yes, they do that. So do their opponents; why doesn’t anybody notice? Does money that comes from the Brady Campaign or Bloomberg’s organization not have the same magical powers as NRA money?

A far more important component of the NRA’s influence is the fact that their members and sympathizers are very passionate about the gun issue, and they vote accordingly. That’s why the Democrat Party got so badly shellacked in 1994. It wasn’t the money, it was angry voters. It would go likewise with musicians who turn on the NRA; many of their fans would turn on them.

I used to be a NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, but I let my NRA membership lapse and, along with it, my status as a range officer.

I have plenty to keep me busy with my day job, so it’s no big deal.

I still take a lot of pride in teaching people gun safety when I get the chance to go to the range or the farm to do some shooting, which seems like “never” these days.

I am fastidious about gun safety and gun “hygiene” (aka being openly safe in range habits to avoid others having to worry about your safety).

If I’m not comfortable with someone else’s gun safety habits at a range, I pack up and leave.

I like guns very much, generally older (as opposed to new production) guns.

I buy them, make grand plans to shoot them at the farm, then put them up and never shoot them or almost any other guns I own.

I can’t remember the last time I shot a gun, which means I’m clearly doing something wrong, because it’s rather therapeutic for me to go out to the farm and shoot a revolver or semi-auto handgun at plastic soft drink bottles and aluminum cans.

I don’t fancy myself as a commando, just someone who enjoys shooting, along with numerous other activities, like theater, reading, running and hitting the gym.

Life and work seem to get in the way of my ability to do any meaningful amount of shooting.

It merely banned the combination of a handful of cosmetic components into one packaged deal.

You didn’t say or imply that it did, but I am just taking the opportunity to add some clarification to a law, which, like many, hides behind a misnomer.

Second, it is possible that the NRA would reduce its lobbying if the gun control lobby would do the same, but, of course, we’ll never know.

The 2 forces are pitted against each other in a pitched battle.

Neither side is going to unilaterally disarm (no pun intended) its lobbying efforts.

According to Open Secrets.org, Hillary Clinton received more money from gun control organizations than President Trump did from pro-2A groups.

As you noted in your article, neither side is going to end its lobbying efforts.

For what it’s worth, in the 1990’s the forces of gun control would sometimes “mis-speak” and acknowledge that they really wanted gun confiscation and bans, achieved through incremental steps.

The Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Violence (or whatever its name it) was initially (and more aptly) titled Handgun Control Inc.

Because that name was a little too accurate for public consumption, the organization changed its name.

Also, the NRA is prohibited from making substantial gifts directly to candidates, but is unrestricted with respect to issue ads and other lobbying.

The real way, I think, that the NRA keeps politicians who covet its endorsement (or good graces) in line is its NRA rating.

A low NRA rating can be a kiss of death for candidates in many parts of the country, while a high NRA rating is simply expected.

Lastly, I don’t think that “pragmatism” and “stridence” are mutually exclusive concepts.

Pragmatic means realistic or sensible, not necessarily something which is the product of compromise.

In political and public policy issues, what’s realistic is what one side has the leverage to achieve through political channels.

If the topic were abortion, the forces of its proponents certainly wouldn’t be amenable to “pragmatic” and “common sense” approaches to abortion regulation, nor would they be open to “dialogue” and compromise.

Like abortion, guns are a very divisive issue and each side is rather strident in their views.

I was previously unaware that the NRA sponsored or endorsed musicians.

I am only familiar with a few of these artists (Aaron Watson and Blackberry Smoke).

The NRA is one of the sponsors of the Bristol night NASCAR race I attend in August each year, which makes sense because NASCAR fans, by and large, a politically monolithic group.

Abortion is about 1000x more regulated in this country than guns. And republicans seek to make it more so everyday. Furthermore, these policies that they seek to enact are based on zero to almost no scientific/medical facts or logic. It’s all super fun bc who doesn’t want a bunch of politicians telling me what to do with my actual body. But yes totally comparable.

Well, in order to buy a gun at a gun dealer you have to show identification, fill out a government form, and submit yourself to a background check. Do you have to do that to get an abortion at the clinic?

What does the NRA have to do with this massacre? And Trigger what law would you pass that could have prevented it?

This is a terrible article based on a lot of poor assumptions. I liked you better when you were introducing us to fine undiscovered artists. I’ve sensed your liberal bias for some time but this absolutely removes all doubt

I never said or implied the NRA had anything to do with the massacre. Nor am I advocating for the passage of any laws, except for maybe laws that help remove special interest money from the political process, which affects both sides.

You understand this article was in direct response to a Rosanne Cash op-ed in the New York Times, and other opinion pieces that are pushing this idea that we must pressure mainstream country artists to come out publicly against the NRA, right? I’m not exactly sure how you could construe that as “liberal bias.”

As for introducing you to fine undiscovered artists, just this week I’ve done articles on Madison Lewis, The Lost Bayou Ramblers, Whitney Rose, and Chris Porter, all of which are independent artists that could very easily be characterized as “undiscovered.” That is always the focus of Saving Country Music, despite these features of independent artists also comprising the least-read articles posted on the site this week. I understand if some don’t want to read these deeper dives into divisive issues, so by all means, feel free to avoid them. I do my best to try to offer as much compelling content as I can, and cover the issues I believe are important to country music.

For large cities in the United States, Chicago is roughly middle of the pack in gun homicides. St. Louis is the leader, and Baltimore is generally 2nd. What is occurring in Chicago, Baltimore, and elsewhere is a massive surge in gun homicides after they’d fallen to historic lows.

This article has the trend line from 1970-2016 nationally. It also breaks it down by region and state. The south is actually the area where most gun homicides happen. when weighted by population. Although Illinois (includes portion of St Louis) and Maryland are both up there.

The left loves to use per capita in this discussion, but they never acknowledge the reality that per capita numbers are almost always higher when the overall population is lower, and that’s in anything, not just crime.

The South has a lower population, so if per capita rates are higher(not conceding that they are, because I haven’t had time to check), it’s obviously because the population is lower.

Please go learn math. You can’t compare without using per capita. This has nothing to do with politics. It’s already problematic enough to compare high density & low density area, not control for things like income level etc.

Just bc you don’t like something, doesn’t make it fake or a lie & you don’t get to just go around excluding things bc they disagree with your conclusion. That’s not how reality works.

Man, I’m finally beginning to believe that America is finished. We used to pride ourselves as a nation on our ability to solve problems. It’s what we did at home, at work, or overseas. Might not be a perfect solution but we put in the thought and effort and did our best.

Well we face a big problem today, “Mass Shootings”

I can’t tell you how sick I am of someone saying “There is no way you can prevent or make less likely Sandy Hook or Vegas.”

In a country whose founding document speaks to the rights of the individual, and creates a LAW to help ensure those rights it’s sad to see so many who would choose to believe the opposite and demand that gov’t do something/anything so they can feel better about themselves.

Our lack of education system demanded by gov’t has done well to ensure, and insure it has opportunity to keep citizens pitted against each other so it can continue to erode our rights.

BTW, the NRA has the largest data base of gun supporter/ownership in the country. Does that sound like they are on our side?

The media, and gov’t also supported weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It/they started wars, on drugs, poverty and terrorism with lies. Yet y’all want to trust it/them with more regulation? When did they stop lying? Confiscation is what is hoped is achieved.

Pragmatism: concerned with the results of thoughts or actions.
Politician: concerned with staying in power.
Rights: inherent.
Entitlement: earned.
Law: rules enforced with the threat of violence.
Rules: meant to control.
Representative: to re-present the wants desires and thoughts of others.
Servant: politician.
Master: in a republican form of governance; citizens.

And I don’t believe Trigger is a liberal or leftist. I see him more as a moderate conservative.

Conservative: to keep. To keep; status quo.
Liberal: free; unless the hijacked word is democrat.
Free: un encumbered.
Bill of Rights: high lighting/recognizing what specifically the gov’t doesn’t have the authority to do, legally.

Trigger is not “independent” any more than Cnn or Fox news. There’s always a sway of political beliefs in his non-music writing.

Massacres are gonna happen forever and ever. Humans are scummy, and we always have a few that wanna run people over, burn down houses, or shoot them up. Adding more laws on books does nothing.

The NRA is doing nothing illegal. They are powerful because so many people believe and fund them. So in a way, it’s democracy via dollars. Changing special interests to change is impossible… Cause you need special interest groups to remove special interest groups. How’s that gonna work?

I orginally came here because of a google search of Cody Jinks, I enjoyed the article on him among a few others so I return occasionally . What I didn’t come here for is a social justice stance, first it was we can’t say anything bad about that Aldean idiot he just did
what everybody else did, oh but wait there were people who went to the aid of those under fire, you know real
people who have compassion, not some fake
cowboy.
Now we have this steaming pile of dung about NRA
sold out performers , hmmmm, well damn country
music normally means country folks, which means
hunters, fisherman, people who live in the world where
you stil do work with your hands. The predominant
portion of those folk believe in the 1st AND 2nd
Ammendments, we don’t pick and choose one over
the other. The same Bill of Rights that give you the
right to write this garbage gives us the right to choose
to or not own a gun of some kind if we choose.
Nowhere in the as important 2nd does it say anything
about hunting or limits on exercising that right than it
does of limiting your free speech.
Now i know this comes as a shock to the constant
butt hurt lefr but we don’t don’t give a damn what some so called famous person says about anything
much less what our rights are.
So go on and write away but remember that a gun earned you that right, not some whiny liberal
appoligist.
I doubt you’ll put this truth up but i felt I, as in my free
speech right, wanted send it.
So frankly I am doubtful of being back, I know no great loss to you, because this is NOT what I come
here for.

I’m a conservative, but I’m for banning those bump stocks. I’m pretty sure that legislative action will commence soon with a good amount of GOP support. The end result ( I hope) will be the banning of bump stocks.

Ok so what’s your issue with these bumpstop stocks?
You do realize that all they are is a sloppy fit stock that allows it to move when place on the weapon ?
Anyone who has handled any kind of weapon knows this is NOT a good thing, accuracy goes to crap. If you want to hit a target the weapon has to remain as still as possible while pulling the trigger.
This whole bumpstop nonsense is a deversion, it’s a useless POS add on and anybody that knows anything about weaponry knows that.

Well, Paddok sure didn’t care about accuracy when he was (quite literally) shooting fish in a barrel at the Harvest Fest. Nut jobs don’t really care about accuracy when all they are going for is mass carnage.

I get what your saying, but if you want to defend a potential weakening of the second amendment, the bump stock is not the hill worth dying on.

Personally I would never put something like that on any weapon I may own, my post was written to understand why a cheap piece of plastic threatened him so.
Clearly we are not getting reliable info from the news media on the tragedy in Las Vegas. This whole bumpstock narrative isn just another 24 hour news cycle talking point, it’s always the same, finf some small piece and blow it all into hysteria.
What happened to those people in Vegas is horrible and they deserve much more respect than what they are getting thanks to those political hacks and news talkers never ending bullshit.

PennsWoods
My care is about the trurh, for once I would like to hear that from politicians. It never happens, we get talking points from the news agencies and pandering from
government officials.
A bump stock ban is nothing but
reactionary and a diversion from the facts.
Banning a part is just going to lead to other
banned parts. We all know that and some/
many of us are against it, not because of a
bump stock but because we know where it
leads.
Our government for the most part is the
bottom of the toilet quality and
unfortunately for us have a whole lot of
important things it should be doing but
isn’t. Taxes, immigration , health care,
among others. Why don’t they do it ? Cause
it’s easier to waste time and money on stupidity than to take care of what we elected them for.
It’s our money being wasted, they don’t care, longer they get to screw us the better they like it.
Also like I said before, the people who died and were injured that day deserve better than that.
How hard is that to understand ?

The Vegas shooter used a bump stock to turn his semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic. Using a fully automatic weapon allowed him to kill/injure many more than he would’ve with a semi-automatic weapon. Please explain why banning it is a bad idea. Because if your lone reason is that it may lead to additional parts bans, then the amount of lives it would’ve saved in Vegas alone outweighs your reason. Any law that saves lives is worthwhile in my opinion.

And the government is ineffective because of lobbyist groups who buy and sell politicians. One of the most powerful of these groups is the NRA. I think your anger is misplaced.

You obviously know nothing about lobbyists if you believe the NRA is one of the largest in Washington.
I get so tired of ignorant people saying things that aren’t true, the only thing that fire fully automatic is an automatic weapon, a semi auto is not an automatic and a ” bump stock “doesn’t change that.
I am disgusted not angry, pandering idiotic hand wringing scared at their own shadow Americans who throw away their freedoms. That really is a pathetic but accurate description of our future.

Roseanne Cash saying the NRA sponsors domestic terrorism is the same as Ted Nugent saying that Muslims support foreign terrorism. Remember, country music artists are about on the same level as celebrities when it comes to politics, they have no greater insight than the rest of us. No one knows why this happened. This was not a NRA sponsored attack.

I respect people who say they want to repeal the 2nd amendment much more than those who always push for gun control. The 2nd amendment and the reason it is there is plain as fucking day to anyone who cares to read it and read about it. Ignoring the bill of rights in the name of safety doesn’t seem sensible to me.

“Trigger” is short for “The Triggerman,” which was a nickname I was given many years ago. I am a responsible gun owner and believe in the importance of the 2nd Amendment.

I am stupefied by the individuals coming here to argue against something that was not presented. I never said the NRA was responsible for the actions of crazy people, or implied it. I can only assume that folks get a sniff of this article, assume that it’s asserting the basic lock step liberal stance on guns, then navigate to the comments section to bitch and run my name down. This article was in direct response to left leaning individuals calling for mainstream country stars to come out against the NRA. I’m not trying to insinuate that it’s a conservative article, because it’s not that either. It’s a realistic assessment of the landscape presented in hopes it breeds understanding.

That may have been your intent but that’s not how this article reads. Maybe you were trying to say something other than what you wrote or possibly you thought you were being sly . Either way there’s plenty of the readers that saw what you wrote different than you, maybe you should go back and actually read this nonsense.

Bullshit, i have been shot at, fortunately they missed but not by much, I have also been run off the road while riding my motorcycle. My stance is stronger than ever, I am not giving up my guns nor am I selling the bike. People like you assume
everybody is as weak in spirit as you are. Here’s a
reality check for you, We are Not so don’t assume
you can speak for us.

I never said you should give up your guns, so follow your own advice and stop assuming. My point was, and I admit I should have clarified it better, if you were shot AND KILLED, your rights would be gone forever. Or if your child was shot AND KILLED BY A MASS MURDERER, your point of view would be different. Maybe not opposite, but different still. And as for the “weak in spirit” comment, thanks for the laugh. I needed that

Go try bullshit someone else, I replied to your whinny post the way you put it up. Your oh is me, if this then that followed by something else could possibly happen then just maybe if the moon is just right in the
sky is crap.
Weak is what you are and that’s fine with
me, just don’t pretend you know what I
would do.
I’m a volunteer fireman, 30 years, in
a rural area so I report to all kinds of calls,
from car accident, shootings, paramedic
trained, to burning houses in the middle of
the night
I’ve seen plenty of death, sometimes
horrible deaths, lots of times caused by car
accidents. Do you want to talk about that,
no ? Didn’t think so . You know what I don’t
do when my radio goes off, I don’t ever not
roll out, you know why, because i can
suck it up and go do what I have to do. We can’t all sit around and make excuses when someone needs help.
So go sit in the corner and think about that,
then do the world a favor and grow up.

Trigger, you say you aren’t taking a side here, but reading between the lines it’s obvious you are. You wanna know why people support the NRA? It’s because certain people, more commonly on the left, are not only calling for gun control or what they call “common sense gun control”, but they consistently bring up Australia as an example for us to follow. If you know anything about Austrailia, in 1996 they banned a large amount of semi-auto Rifles and Shotguns. What else did Australia do….they instituted a Buyback program, and not just any buyback, but a MANDATORY buyback. Mandatory buyback of course is a nice way of saying GUN CONFISCATION. And about 6 years later they further tightened the noose on handguns.

What allowed this to happen? Australia doesn’t have a Bill of Rights, and certainly isn’t guaranteed the right to bear arms by a Constitution. Therefore, what Australia did was not unconstitional. Such a program can never be implemented in the United States because of our Constitutionally gauranteed right to bear arms and because we have a Bill of Rights.

We also see people calling for bans on private ownership of fireams, and the outright repeal of the 2nd Ammendment. A repeal will never in a million years happen because it would take 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 38 of 50 states to ratify it. Good luck with that anti-gunners. Maybe if people weren’t calling for the Repeal of one of the two most important constitutional protections and they weren’t openly endorsing gun confiscation, thennnnn maybe we could have a rational discussion.

Trigger, I’m sure you’ve been told this many times before, but STICK TO MUSIC.

That’s right, law abiding Australian citizens were robbed of guns they legally purchased, to punish them for crimes they did not commit. It ain’t justice. And it’s un American. We don’t get to decide what does down down under, but we can defend out God given rights here in the USA.

It’s not, liberal screamers mean nothing if you give them no audience for their nonsense. Treat them like the spoiled brat feeble minded children they are. Poof they go find something else to bitch about. ..problem solved

Great article man. I hate the new NRA album too. I liked their first couple, back when they were actually country. This new NRA album is too much rock and jazz and the music just sucks now. I mean, there are horns on it for pete’s sake. Nothing country about horns… Great review though. Hopefully their next album will be a return to their roots and more real country music. I’ve got tickets to see them soon, so maybe they’ll still play some of the hits.

Eh, didn’t Tim McGraw come out in favor of gun control after the Sandy-Hook event? I’m sure coming out in favor of such measures won’t necessarily jeopardize your career, unless of course you do it stupidly like the Dixie Chicks.

I agree though that even those that don’t support the NRA within country music won’t come out and say anything for the same reason no country artist has come out criticizing Trump- they don’t want to see their fan base implode against them

Tim McGraw turned one of his concerts in the Sandy Hook area into a benefit for the families of the Sandy Hook victims, and Brietbart turned it into a three ring circus saying basically McGraw was coming out for strict gun control, which he never did. McGraw is a Democrat and at times has spoken on political matters, but there was actually a tie to one of his band members and the charity, and that’s the reason he chose to support the cause. The Sandy Hook organization came out vehemently saying they were NOT a political organization, and still McGraw got hounded for it, and Brietbart attempted to Dixie Chick him, and failed because their accusations were completely unfounded. The NRA was asked to comment by myself and others on the matter, and never said anything, because again, the charity wasn’t a gun control organization. Frankly, that instance was a very good example of two things:

1) A major country music artists could never come out for gun control, because even when they simply try to support a charity of the dead children of a mass shooting, they’re hounded for supporting gun control.

2) The “no regulation ever” crowd in the gun debate is so rearing for any fight at any time, they will oppose a charity concert for victims of a heinous act just because some perceive it may have some ties to gun control, even if it doesn’t. It’s the perfect example of what has happened with this article. I come out saying it’s ridiculous for people to expect mainstream country stars to come out against the NRA, and somehow this is taken as a left-leaning libtard hit piece on the 2nd Amendment. I’m telling you, anti Gun control bulldogs are their own worst enemies, and are doing a huge disservice for themselves in the gun control debate via irrational rhetoric.

Trig, you think the anti-gun side is going to stop with just one or two new regulations? As soon as they realize their new steps to curb gun violence don’t work they’re going to keep progressing down the line until we have nothing left. They despise self-reliance.

Your not as slick with your word twisting as you think. That is why everybody sees what you wrote here.
Anti gun control bulldogs are their own worse enemy , hmmm, so what about gun control bulldogs, who are they
. A major country music artist could never come out for gun control, hmm, I would think if that’s
such a popular thought he would have no problem
finding fans to support him.
As far as your attempted Breitbart hit, you will find
more truth and accurate reporting there than you
will find in cnn, nsmbc, nbs, cbs, abc, ny times, etc
combined.
Of course that would for you to recognize the truth when it’s in front of you. I ain’t holding my breath.

Well as a lifetime country music fan and a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, what does one have to do with the other?

Laws are words on paper, written by people who can be coerced, bribed, extorted… just like the people in your local church/city council… car club, whatever. As they used to say : the rich man’s law.

Laws do not protect anyone, morality does. Either you believe it’s ok to go around killing people, or you do not. Either you believe it’s ok to steal from other people, or you do not. The fact that most people do not want to kill you or that even if they are REALLY MAD and have a legitimate reason to be upset with you… and they still don’t want to kill you, that is what protects you. Not laws on a piece of paper or a police man standing outside your house.

The Supreme Court of the US, ruled back in the 1980s, that the police DO NOT HAVE to protect you. They only have to investigate the crime, after the fact.

As far as the weapons this asshat allegedly used, so far from what reports I have seen, they are legal weapons, he wasn’t on paper as being crazy and he wasn’t a convicted felon. So… what restrictions are you going to put on guns now to keep this from happening?

We already have a national background check for EVERY gun purchased in America. Every single time you go to the dealer to buy one. Unless you have a concealed weapons permit in some states, which in my state requires two sets of fingerprints and handprints, plus a background check by my statewide law enforcement agency and the FBI itself.

It is illegal to sell or provide firearms or ammo to someone you have any reason to believe is going to use them in a crime or to hurt someone. It’s illegal to be in possession of firearm, just while committing a felony in most states, even if the gun was not used to coerce anyone. In my state it is an extra 10 years, state prison.

If you decide to go crazy, but no one knows it, you can amass a lot of weapons and no one will know. When that nutter Tim McVeigh blew up the OKC building in Oklahoma, he killed a lot of people… with a rental truck and a fertilizer bomb. On 9/11/2001, they used box cutters to take over an airplane and turn it into a guided missile.

Then that nutter that blew up the Arianna Grande(I may have misspelled her name) with a bomb?

How are you going to write enough words on a piece of paper to stop people from doing stupid/evil things? People still drink and drive and the law has been a BAC of .08 for YEARS in most states in the Union, but people still do it.

People are still getting raped, kids are still getting molested. Why? Because those people don’t care about other people or what they do to them. They only care about themselves and what they want.

Every big holiday there are those stories about family members snapping on each other over food… which isn’t the real reason, it was just the last straw. How are you going to stop that?

As for the type of gun, we could have sat up there with a old western sharps buffalo gun shooting black powder cartridges and done just as much damage, even more actually because the bullet is bigger and faster. And that design is from the 1860s or so, folks. Or even a old Winchester level action rifle and a bag of ammo. Ker-pow.

Even if you ban guns, big deal. It isn’t THAT hard to make one. Go visit a machine shop, everything you need is in there.

Back when the British Empire tried to take over Afghanistan, the Afghanis would steal the railroad rails at night, take them back in the hills… use a foot powered lathe and MAKE a hand made copy of the british service rifle… then go back and kill more British army guys.

I just don’t understand why people think it’s ok for only the criminals and the government to own weapons, like, I should trust them?

Communist China has like, no private gun ownership and every year they have these stories of people just losing it and stabbing bunches of people at once, just slaughtering them.

I’m very sorry these people were killed in Las Vegas who were just out trying to have a good time. It should not have happened.

You can never be completely safe, anywhere. No matter what laws or what type of government, too many rats in the maze, some of them are going to snap.

Woogeroo, if you truly believe that a 19th century Sharps rifle or a even a lever action Winchester, in the hands of the average person, would have done as much damage in as little time as a semi-automatic rifle fitted with a bump-stock, then you’re living in a goddamned fantasy.

If those who crafted the 2nd Amendment could travel forward through time, I am curious how they would react — learning about what weapons we have today, what weapons governments and other groups seeking power have, and as well assess how weapons have caused unintentional death by suicide, children playing, sudden anger, revenge, and, of course, crime.

And, as well, they would see whether any citizen militia has been needed to fight in the last 100 years and whether an unorganized group of individuals assembling could even be effective against what forces of today use.

The Amendment was written based on the weaponry of the day…and even today we put limits on what weaponry is allowable (no home nuclear devices…). There are always limits and contexts to rights and these do change.

They might also have an opinion on how many weapons and what kind an individual needs in order to protect himself and his family and property, as well as do whatever food or sport shooting he wishes.

The rights endure but the context changes with time and circumstances…and it would
be great to know how those who set down the rights see it.

(Remember, once it was written that God would smite you for eating bacon and the community would stone you for premarital sex…)

Truthfully I believe they would be angry with us, they fought in sometimes horrible conditions, many dead or were captured and tortured by the British. They did this to be free and to pass on the idea that a man should rule his own life, not some king or government.
That is why the words in the Bill of Rights and the
Constitution are so specific, they could see into the
future by looking into the past. They came from all
different backgrounds but stood together when it
mattered.
Today we have no compassion for our freedoms, we
are willing to throw them, away because we can’t be
bothered to fight for them or because some new boogyman appears . The new IPhone is more
important than rights and obligations as citizens,
shop till you drop.
We are over taxed, over regulated and spied on by our
own government every day. We are lied to and sold
out by the people we elect to represent us and we do
nothing.
What would they think ? If you’re honest with
yourself you already know that answer.
As for me, Give me Liberty or give me Death

I’m a long time reader of this site but today is the last day. So many errors in this article and such a needless, political slant. It’s just all so unnecessary and I’m sad that you chose to write this man. Goodbye.

Trig, liked what I read of the article, even if I didn’t agree with it, but have you ever thought that maybe some country artists don’t support gun rights because they’re controlled by society or the NRA, but because they actually support constitutional civil liberties? Not everybody who disagrees with gun control is a dumb puppet.